We want to avoid using reputation as a measure of any individual contributors efficacy. This type of system is antithetical to the EngineerDAO philosophy. Anyone should be able to attempt to complete any given contract, so long as they are willing and able to pay the buy-in fee. This upholds the value preposition for engineers. Trust (reputation for doing a good job) is not necessary, it's simply about putting skin in the game.
Reputation tokens on EngineerDAO are primarily intended to incentivize referrals and sales. Assigning reputation for supplying contracts doesn't affect our value preposition in the same way as assigning reputation to engineers. We want to incentivize suppliers to complete contracts by any means necessary. Although this is usually in everyone's best interest (barring a clear engineer failure), reputation is metric for engineers to consider when looking at a contract.
A contract with no reputation (as many will be) shouldn't be avoided, as the main mechanism is the custodial bounty + buy-in. If a contract exists, an engineer can be certain that a bounty is available for completing that contract adequately. However, if a supplier wallet has no reputation, an engineer may be more careful about making their anonymity requirements clear and understanding the projects requirements. A contract going to dispute resolution is bad for everyone, so both sides should be careful to articular clear guidelines for the project and working relationship.
Essentially, reputation can communicate an understanding of the platform and some experience working in this manner. It should be a more lightly-weighted consideration when selecting a contract.
Reputation should have some real world utility, beyond communicating experience. We haven't nailed this down quite yet, but here are some ideas we're considering for a post-MVP phase: